MAHB has been a focus of controversy, more so when Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim fail to stop a pro-Israel entity like BlackRock continue to be part of ALLIANCE to take over MAHB. The main Malaysians entity involved is Khazanah and EPF/KWSP - both entities are government controlled/owned, and thus the Minister responsible is again Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Then there was the issue of EPF/KWSP selling of its MAHB shares at a low price, and then reacquiring the shares at a higher value - WHY? Would it affect our EPF/KWSP dividends this year. Remember EPF/KWSP money belongs to the workers and/or EPF Members 100% - The Money does not belong to the government of Malaysia - but the Minister of Finance decides..
BlackRock was an identified entity that supports Israel - including the supply of arms, that have been used to kill Palestinians. Logically, Malaysia who has a strong position against Israel should not be entering into business relationship with such entities. Malaysian government ignored this and continued with the deal. Worse, is that MTUC(Malaysian Trade Union Congress) that sits on the EPF/KWSP Board representing ALL Malaysian workers stayed silent when this deal was being done with an entity that is identified by UN as supporting Israel - What do Malaysian workers say? Are we OK with entering into a deal with a pro-Israel entity involved in funding and supplying of arms?
Anyway, there are OTHER issues? Why enter a deal with GIP at all - when they do not have that great record in handling airports, and MAHB did much better before than airports handled by GIP
The next question is whether GIP brings great expertise to the table. Let’s look at some airports it manages. London Gatwick, is ranked 48th by ranking agency Skytrax, Sydney Airport 55th, and London City Airport 82nd. KLIA, operated by MAHB, is ranked 67th and was once in the top 10, according to reports. Surely then we must have the expertise to take it back there. Is there a need to privatise at below valuation at this point when it is low? And is a foreign partner even needed?
Was there transparency of the real value of MAHB to all shareholders...
Did all shareholders have equal information when the takeover offer was made? Almost certainly not because the offerors were insiders.
And then there is the issue of thousands of acres of land. Were they reasonably assessed for these purposes?...“The development rights for the 41 lots, which make up KLIA Aeropolis, are for 99 years commencing from Nov 17, 2022. “In addition, Putrajaya agreed to carve out KLIA Aeropolis from its existing operating agreement (OA) with MAHB - effectively giving KASB the rights to develop the land much like a real estate developer.”That means the 8,537 acres in Sepang can be used for development. How much would that be worth over the long term? There’s no disclosure and therefore, no clarity.
P. Gunasegaram wrote a few articles, which I reproduce here some, about concerns about MAHB takeover..DO READ THEM for MAHB is a concern for all Malaysians - and our Prime Minister/ Finance Minister and Transport Minister Anthony Loke may have done some 'wrongs' - Parliament should have looked into this 'deal' - was it a failure of the 'check and balance' responsibilities of Parliament ? It is Gunasegaran views but it still matters - as the government to date seems to have been fully TRANSPARENT ..
See some related posts:-
Money of 16.1 million Malaysian EPF contributors - Do we agree in BlackRock's involvement in MAHB deal? Singapore students protest collaboration with Israel entity?
Malaysians stance of Israel-Palestine maybe different from Anwar and government? Blackrock, BOYCOTT, dealings with arm suppliers that kill Palestinians?
Parliament, not Prime Minister, must decide on Malaysia's stance on the Palestine issue - after PM Anwar allowed those who supply arms to Israel to participate in exhibition in Malaysia?
Palestinian Rally at Axiata Stadium(4/8/2024,6 or 8pm) officiated by Anwar Ibrahim? Discontinue MAHB-BlackRock(vide GIP) deal to be consistent with position against those who support Israel's killing of Palestinians?
Apa tinggal milik rakyat selepas kerajaan UMNO-BN? Lanjutan kontrak MAHB 35 tahun?
Trade Union support MAHB? Did the Union get MAHB to agree to give the workers higher pay or regular employment? Role of TUs?
P Gunasegaram
Published: Feb 7, 2025 8:00 AM
⋅
Updated: 8:00 AM
COMMENT | It’s all over now - Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) is firmly in the hands of the Gateway Development Alliance (GDA), the group which made the takeover offer, but there’s a bitter taste about the way it all went and the strong-arm tactics used.
The thing to note is that this takeover could not be done without the consent of sovereign fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad and retirement fund Employees Provident Fund (EPF) - who before speculations over the offer jointly held well over 40 percent of MAHB.
Neither Khazanah nor EPF are hedge funds or private equity firms looking to make money at the expense of minority shareholders through strong-arm tactics.
They pretty much had it in their power to make any changes needed at MAHB, including the change in management if required.
The question is, why they did not do this when they had a clear and present opportunity for many years? Why did they indulge in privatisation which resulted in foreigners owning 30 percent?
Why GIP, Blackrock?
Why did they have to resort to a partnership with Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), associated with controversial Blackrock, which manages airports but has not done a particularly great job of doing it, with MAHB having achieved a far better ranking in the past as I explained here?
GDA is led by Khazanah (40 percent), EPF (30 percent) and the remaining 30 percent between the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (Adia) and GIP.
GIP is an arm of the famed, or infamous depending on who you talk to, Blackrock, the world’s largest fund manager with US$11.5 trillion in assets.
READ MORE: KINIGUIDE | MAHB deal: What is GIP and is it linked to Israel?
What is not disclosed is the exact role that GIP will play in the management of the airports. What will it charge for managing the airports and how much will be left over after that? Surely, they have those figures.
It has been reported that GIP will have an effective 25 percent stake in GDA, and given the value of RM18.4 billion of the takeover, this is worth RM4.6 billion.
What kind of return does GIP expect over the years? Some 50 percent at least in two or three years?
Land development
It will want a lucrative contract for airport management to boost returns. What form will the contract take, why is there no disclosure?
Did all shareholders have equal information when the takeover offer was made? Almost certainly not because the offerors were insiders.
And then there is the issue of thousands of acres of land. Were they reasonably assessed for these purposes?
Let’s look at this report in The Edge dated Nov 28, 2022, which I quote verbatim: “But in an announcement last week, the development of KLIA Aeropolis in Sepang was given a big boost when the government, through the Federal Lands Commissioner, agreed to grant development rights for 41 lots of land totalling 8,537.31 acres in Sepang to MAHB’s wholly-owned subsidiary, KLIA Aeropolis Sdn Bhd (KASB).
“The development rights for the 41 lots, which make up KLIA Aeropolis, are for 99 years commencing from Nov 17, 2022.
“In addition, Putrajaya agreed to carve out KLIA Aeropolis from its existing operating agreement (OA) with MAHB - effectively giving KASB the rights to develop the land much like a real estate developer.”
That means the 8,537 acres in Sepang can be used for development. How much would that be worth over the long term? There’s no disclosure and therefore, no clarity.

The offerors, of which the main ones are Khazanah and EPF, must be pretty certain that MAHB would be worth a lot more than that RM11 a share offer.
Why not opt for a deal where the minority shareholders would benefit from the upside instead of taking it private?
No reason to delist
Would that not make MAHB, a major infrastructure provider, more transparent and accountable to the public because it has to make regular detailed reporting?
Look at what happened to Malaysia Airlines when it was taken private - it continued to make losses for a long time but we did not even know why exactly - the disclosure was that bad.
And then there is that nagging question of how EPF sold down its shares in MAHB from around 15 percent to about five percent from some time in 2023 onwards to before the offer was made when MAHB was in a major transformation programme - which would add value in the years ahead as exemplified in the report by The Edge?
Did EPF lose RM500m?
Was EPF’s opportunity cost really RM500 million due to the sell-down and subsequent repurchase? And if it was, who was the beneficiary on the other side?
What transpired was a rather controversial takeover offer involving not hedge funds and private equity companies but a sovereign investment fund and a retirement fund in partnership with an infrastructure fund linked to Blackrock with many questions unanswered.
It’s worth repeating here that independent directors of MAHB said the offer was inadequate, citing plans already in place by MAHB which would create much value in future.
They came in for much, and sometimes undue criticism, by GDA.
Some questions
Here are some questions for the regulators - Securities Commission and Bursa Malaysia.
Was there impropriety in the trading of MAHB shares by EPF? Did EPF lose the opportunity to make money improperly? Who gained from it?
Was every effort made to inform all shareholders of the potential value of MAHB by management and investment bankers? What improvements will you make in future?

Was there pressure to do this deal even if it was not the best for minority shareholders, who were cajoled and threatened into the deal with the threat of delisting?
There are those who say the market has spoken. Ok, fair enough. But the market is not perfect - often not even close - and it is often not fair too.
There is a need to ensure that it is as perfect and as fair as it can be - but signs are it was not so here. There’s a whiff of arm-twisting and misinformation that’s disconcerting.
The unfortunate thing is that all key players - the CEO and board of Khazanah, EPF and MAHB cannot be there without the effective sanction of the government. That makes it easy for their positions to be compromised. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the Madani government.

And here’s a question for the government which had pushed through this deal: Why was it necessary to go ahead with this deal when there were so many problems and unanswered questions?
And please don’t use the aerotrain and baggage handling excuse - that was there for ages and probably involved some deal as well which cannot be disclosed.
How else can one explain away that there has been no explanation for it after all these years?
P GUNASEGARAM says it is a sad fact of life that many governance questions - corporate or otherwise - go unanswered in Malaysia.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini. - Malaysiakini, 7/2/2025
Minority shareholders should reject offer for MAHB
By P. Gunasegaram

Answering two questions over the privatisation of Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) will help to assess whether the offer price of RM11 per share is fair and reasonable. The offer is being made by Gateway Development Alliance, a consortium led by Khazanah Nasional and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF).
The first question is whether the offer price reflects the true value of MAHB. The second is if one of the shareholders of Gateway, Global Investment Partners (GIP) which is supposed to have expertise in airport management, can really add value.
Nothing else really matters, including Blackrock’s investment in the consortium through GIP. Blackrock is a global investor with trillions of US dollars invested all over the world.
First the details. The consortium’s other partner besides Khazanah, EPF and GIP is the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA). If the offer is successful, Khazanah will increase its ownership in MAHB from 33.2% to 40% and EPF from 7.9% to 30%. ADIA and GIP will hold the remaining 30%.
Collectively, Malaysian investors, through Khazanah and EPF, would own 70% of MAHB. The government will retain special share rights in MAHB and the chairman and CEO will continue to be Malaysian citizens.
The offer is conditional upon 90% control following which the remaining shares will be compulsorily acquired. The current level of control is 85.8% after acceptances as at Jan 15. The original closing date was today (Jan 17), already extended from Jan 8. It is likely if the date was maintained it would not be successful, but it has been extended again by a week to Jan 24.
Conflicting recommendations
The assessment of the offer is complicated by conflicting recommendations. Appointed advisers Hong Leong Investment Bank (HLIB) made the cryptic verdict of “unfair but reasonable”. Tellingly five independent directors disagreed vehemently and believe the offer of RM11 per share is insufficient.
A newly added complication is that Transport Minister Anthony Loke has decided to wade into troubled waters to provide buoyancy on the side of the offerors. As minister and regulator, he should have stayed out but he did not.

Loke’s involvement and the repeated extensions is clear indication that those in power want this deal to go through, although why that is so is not known.
EPF should remain a passive investor always and not waste precious resources on active investment management. That is not its role. As a sovereign fund, Khazanah can do this but it has to be able to support its stance.
“Unfair but reasonable”
HLIB deemed the offer as unfair as it represents a 13-20% discount to their estimated fair value of between RM12.60 and RM13.70 per MAHB share, but added it was reasonable in the absence of a competing offer – a standard ploy used to signal a poor offer without rejecting it.
Independent directors strongly disagree with HLIB’s recommendation finding them both unfair and unreasonable, and have advised shareholders to reject it. They are Mohamad Husin, Ramanathan Sathiamutty, Cheryl Khor Hui Peng, Koe Peng Kang, and Chris Chia Woon Liat. Good on them!
What is interesting is their view on future prospects. They point out MAHB’s current strong growth and future prospects, with its ongoing and planned initiatives for development.
MAHB has secured management extensions for 39 airports nationwide until 2069 – 45 years. Capital recovery mechanisms that enable significant investments in capacity expansion at key airports and accelerated off-terminal initiatives, such as the KLIA Aeropolis and Subang Airport Regeneration Plan, are already underway.
Strong prospects for MAHB
They pointed to MAHB’s strong post-Covid-19 recovery for passenger throughput, as seen in the rebound of passenger traffic at its airports. And one concern which everyone shares is that the delisting of MAHB would reduce its transparency, accountability, and ability to raise capital from public markets.
Given MAHB’s positive financial momentum, clear growth strategy, and the potential for future value accretion if the shares remain publicly traded, the directors found no compelling reasons for shareholders to accept an offer that does not adequately reflect MAHB’s full potential.
The offer is neither fair nor reasonable.
The next question is whether GIP brings great expertise to the table. Let’s look at some airports it manages. London Gatwick, is ranked 48th by ranking agency Skytrax, Sydney Airport 55th, and London City Airport 82nd.
KLIA, operated by MAHB, is ranked 67th and was once in the top 10, according to reports. Surely then we must have the expertise to take it back there. Is there a need to privatise at below valuation at this point when it is low? And is a foreign partner even needed?

Part of the problem is that the government differentiates against government linked companies – MAHB suffered when airlines refused to pay higher rates, and the government stood by and watched.
Instead of getting foreign partners in, the government should allow MAHB to raise rates (and you can be sure rates will rise if the offer is successful) and let it find capital for the necessary expenditure required to upgrade the airports. Get good management in and give them a free hand instead of tying their hands for political reasons.
Neither fair nor reasonable
We now have answers to both questions. No, the offer is not fair and neither is it reasonable if we take into account future projects and earnings of MAHB, as explained by the five independent directors who rejected the offer – they should know.
And it’s hard to see how value is being added. Better that the current shareholdings remain intact, everyone is given an opportunity to buy equity in MAHB and let the management create value unhindered. It’s been done before.
But if minority shareholders now capitulate and accept the offer, the deal will still go through. One hopes the remaining minority shareholders who have not accepted the offer will stick to their guns to reject this offer in favour of long-term gain.
The last traded price before the offer was RM10.40 a share. The offer is a mere 5% premium. That’s really nothing for a take over of a major airport operator whose prospects are bright and undiminished.
Opportunists are always looking for undervalued assets. Let them use the marketplace to buy them and it will result in better value for all instead of facilitating their greed by giving them the assets on a platter at their price.
P Gunasegaram says that as a matter of policy privatising listed
assets must be actively discouraged – it erodes market depth,
efficiency, and transparency, and encourages circumventing fairplay by
stretching rules to limits.KiniBiz, 17/1/2025